A MODEST DISCOURSE Concerning the Ceremonies Heretofore used in the CHURCH of ENGLAND, showing the unlawfulness of them in the worship of GOD.  
LONDON, Printed by T. R. for Nathanael web, at the Kings-head in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1660.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ceremonies Heretofore used in the CHURCH of ENGLAND, showing the unlawfulness of them in the worship of God.  
Ceremonies of cross, Surplice, Kneeling in the Sacraments, enjoined to be used in the administration of Gods worship, seems to me unlawful to be used therein for these reasons.  

1 FRom the ground whereupon they are enjoined, the authority of the Church in commanding matters of indifferency, which wanteth ground from Scripture.  
1. From the Commission of Christ; Christ gave Commission to his Apostles to teach his people, to observe all things, whatsoever he had commanded them, Matthew 28.20. The authority which the Church hath received from Christ, is not judicial, to make laws or Canons of such things, which he hath left free, but ministerial only, to declare his laws and statutes unto the people, as may appear. Things commanded them by Christ, must be therefore the Subject of their teaching. If they teach things not commanded, they go beyond the bounds of their commission, which for commissioners of an earthly Prince to do, were the incurring of a Premanire, and what were it less than sacrilegious usurpation in the commissioners of Christ.  
2. From the practise of the Apostles, who laid no other burden upon the disciples than necessary things. Act. 15.28. necessary I say, though not all of them in themselves, by virtue of any command of God, forbidding them generally to all Churches, at all times, but by reason of the present offence, which that time the weak Jew would take at the eating of blood, and strangled, and the weak Gentiles, at the eating of things sacrificed to Idols. In which regard the royal law of love, requiring that nothing be done to the offence of our weak brethren; and the Apostles wisely discerning that in the Churches of those times, the eating of such things would be offensive to weak brethren, they therefore, warrantably concluded and commanded in the name of the holy ghost, as well as of themselves, abstinence from such things, when the same thing afterward ceased to be offensive, abstinence from them ceased to be necessary, yea, and the Apostles ordinance touching that abstinence ceased to be in force. The Christians abstaining from blood, a long time after, in the primitive Church, when the offence of the Jew ceased, was yet a seasonable preventing of the scandal, or rather slander of the gentle, for when the Gentiles accused them of unnatural feeding of mans flesh and blood in sacrifices: how fitly did Tertullian● pled that it was incredible they should defile themselves by eating of mans blood, who held the eating of any blood unlawful, by the rules of their religion.  
But the practise of Paul in this kind excelleth, who being to commend to the church of Corinth single life, which was not onely a thing indifferent in its own nature, but also of much expediency to them in regard of the present persecutions and other continual worldly cares, ver. 26, 29. yet because he had received no commandment from the Lord to impose this estate of single life upon them; therefore he himself giveth no Commandment unto them, 2 Cor. 7.6. but advice only as one that had obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful, ver. 25. and yet lest this advice should seem to bind too far, even to the prejudice of the use of their Christian liberty in the ordinance of marriage, he therefore telleth them what he speaketh in this kind, he would be so understood as to speak for their commodity, and not to entangle them in a snare, ver. 35 and therefore if they shall see marriage needful for themselves, or their virgins, and shall think the want of marriage uncomely, he giveth them leave( notwithstanding his advice) to do what they will, ver. 36. so that in the carriage of this business, there appeareth evidently to excel in Paul a double care. First lest he should seem tomake an ordinance or to give a commandment to the Church in such things of indifferency, whereof he received no commandment from the Lord. Secondly lest he should seem by making any such ordinance to prejudice the use of Christian liberty. Thirdly from the Apostles reproof of the Colossians, for suffering themselves to be burdened with such things as did perish with the use of them, and were after the commandments of men, Colos. 2.20, 22. From which words of the Apostle a double reason may be gathered to prove the unlawfullnes of yielding to Church-traditions of indifferency.  
I. Such things as perish with the use of them( that is, leave no blessing behind them) why are you burdened with them?  
But ceremonies of indifferency perish with the use of them, making the worship in hand, never awhit the better by the use of them, nor never awhit the worse by forbearing of them, therefore ceremonies of indifferency why are you burdened with them?  
II. Such things as have no higher warrant than the Commandments of men, why are you burdened with them?  
But Ceremonies of indifferency have no higher warrant than the Commandments of men, therefore why are you burdened with them?  
And indeed this seemeth to me amongst many other, one perpetual difference to be kept, between the Commandements of God and man: God may first command a thing, and then it becometh good; man must first see a thing good, and then command it.  
Object. It will be said, when Christ limited the Apostles Commission to the teaching only of such things to be observed as himself hath commanded; he meant only to restrain them to the teaching of such things as necessary to salvation, or as binding the Conscience, or as parts of Gods worship; and therefore, when the false Apostles urged the observation of Jewish Ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and with opinion of worship, the Apostle justly reasoneth against them, by showing their end to be anprofitable( they perishing with the use) and their authority to be of men only. But setting aside the opinion of necessity, and of worship, Christ never forbade it, nor the Apostles never reproved it, that the Church should institute Ceremonies, which Christ commanded not as, matters of indifferency, and decency.  
Answ. Though it be true that the false Apostles put necessity and worship in their Ceremonies, which made them so much the worse, yet some of the reasons used by the Apostle, do strike also at their indifferency( they perishing with the use) and at their authority, they proceeding only from the counsel and will of man, being after the Commandments and doctrines of men: so, that howsoever the Apostles principal scope, was to reprove their Ceremonies of some more gross superstition than is hitherto found in ours, with us yet the force of his reasons( ver. 22.) condemneth them likewise of some such faultiness, as is common to theirs, with ours also,( to wit) indifferency, and dependence upon human authority. Neither is it enough to say, that Christ, when he limited the Apostles to the teaching of things commanded by him, spake only of teaching his Commandments as matters of necessity, and gave leave to teach other matters of indifferency at their own discretion, unless it be shown where Christ gave such leave to his Apostles or their successors so to do; that they ought to teach all things to be observed, which be commanded, is expressed in their Commission, but that they may teach other things to be observed, either as indifferent or necessary, which he commanded not, I see no warrant thereof, either from their Commission or from other Scripture, the place usually alleged for warrant, 1 Cor. 14.40. seemeth to me to afford no such liberty, Let all things be done decently and by order:( All things) I understand all the duties of gods worship: whether singing, or praying, or preaching, or speaking, or interpreting Tongues, or administering Sacraments, or Censures, as ver. 26. And the decency and order wherein all these things are to be done, I understand to be such, as whose contrary is undecent and disorderly: as, Let the Corinthian women pray with their heads covered, and the men with their heads uncovered, and without long hair, for these things are decent, and the( contrary thereof undecent: as, Judge in yourselves, saith the Apostle, Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered, or doth not nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shane unto him, 1 Cor. 11.13, 14. And let the Prophets speak, two or three: and if any thing be revealed to another standing by, let the first hold his peace, and the spirits of the Prophets let them be subject to the Prophets: these things all of them keep such comely order, as the doing contra●iwise were disorderly confusion. If all should speak at once, and the spirits of the Prophets should not submit themselves one to another in the Lord, what disorder and confusion would this be, beseeming not the Churches of the Saints, but the routs of Cyclops: ubi {αβγδ}. So that it seemeth to me no part of the Apostles meaning to give liberty to the Church, to make laws or Canons concerning matters of indifferency, but only to provide that no duty of Gods worship be offered up unto him in any sinful undecency and disorder, which will the better appear, if we go about to conclude such Canons of indifferent things from the Apostles general proposition. Say the Church should command all ministers to preach in a gown, and should infer this commandment from the Apostles general rule, let all things be done decently. To preach in a gown is decent, therefore let that be done, who seeth not this conclusion to run affirmatively in the second figure. And indeed that such kind of commandments are not grounded at all upon the commandment of the Apostle, appeareth also evidently from hence, that when such commandments of the Church are transgressed, yet the commandment of the Apostle is not transgressed, which could not be, if such commandments of the Church were grounded upon the commandment of the Apostle: for instance, if the church command me to preach in a gown, I preaching in a cloak transgress indeed the commandment of the Church, but not at all the commandment of the Apostle, for he that preacheth in a cloak, preacheth decently( which is all the Apostles commandment required) yea, and as decently as he that preacheth in a gown, else whereto serves Tertullian's whole book de Pallio.  
Obj. Why, but may not the Church command all ministers to minister in the same kind of vestments for uniformity sake; Is not variety in this kind an undecent confusion?  
Ans. No, uniformity in matters of indifferency God never required, but in such cases commanded for preservation of unity and brotherly love, that no man should judge or despise his brother, and the strong to bear with the infirmities of the weak, Rom. 14.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, &c, 15.1, 2.  
Obj. But what direction of the Apostle was given when there was no Christian Magistrate?  
Ans. True, but since God blessed Churches with Christian magistrates, it is not in their power to alter the laws of God concerning this unity and brotherly love, and the means of preserving the same. Nay, they themselves as Christians are bound to observe those directions of the Apostle in their own persons, yea and as magistrates to see that their subjects also observe the same.  
Obj. What, then may not the Church command the times of the day and places of Gods worship, which are matters of indifferency?  
Ans. These things for ordinary course, may fully be provided for without any commandment of the Church. Some congregations repair to Churches, other to Chapells, some at eight of the cloak, some at nine, others at ten, but all of their own accord, as may stand best with their Ministers occasions and the provision and business of the body of the parish: indeed when God calleth to extraordinary, either humiliation in a religious fast, or solemn rejoicing in a holy feast, the Church may then command the times of both, as in Christian discretion may be thought fittest for the vacancy of the congregation. But this is not to command a matter of indifferency: but to follow Gods calling in a point of duty.  
Obj. But did not Paul command a water of indifferency, when he commanded greetings, with an holykisse. Is there a necessity of kissing whomsoever we greet.  
Aus. Paul doth not command kissin●, but the holiness of it, for whereas kissing was an usual manner of salutation generally throughout all most all countries, Paul in that commandment provideth only, that the kisses given in way of salutation be not lascivious, or trea●h●rous, or complemental, but holy, expressing Ch●i●●i●n affection, and thus though kissing be not necessary, yet where kissing is in use, the holinesse thereof commanded by the Apostle is necessary.  
Obj. If it be not in the power of the Church to command in matters of indifferency, how coul● the primitive Church take up such plenty of ob●●●●a●ions in this kind.  
Ans. They took up those observations, not upon command of their church-governors, but partly voluntarily of their own accord, partly upon the example or advice of some whom they much reverenced. Socr. lib. 5. Cap. 22. Sozon l. 7. c. 19.  
2. The observations which themselves kept, they did not thrust upon others, but left every particular church free to their own discretion, Socr. ibid. Sozon ibid. Cypr. in Sententiis haereticorum, de haereticis, baptizandis. Victor's immoderate zeal, in excommunicating them of Asia for their different observations of Easter, was censured by Cyprian and Irenaeus as stretching the rigor of his government, not only to persous beyond his line, but also to things or causes of indifferency, not admitting such severe censure, Euseb. l. 5.1.26.  
3. It is not to be forgotten with what a cloud of superstition, these indifferent observations in process of time( by Gods just judgement) over-spread the face of the Church, so that men grew to put necessity in matters of indifferency, and to put indifferency in matters of necessity, and in the end to observe the whole worship of God rather in a pompous dumb show of outward ceremony, than in any inward life of Spirit, and truth.  
Obj. But though it be granted that it is not in the power of the Church to command matters of indifferency, and therefore that the governors of the Church shall sin, if they do command things of this kind, yet nevertheless, it may be thought to be no sin in private men to obey this commandment, for they herein do but exercise their lawful liberty in using things of indifferency, as may stand best with their own expediency.  
Ans. 1. It is denied( and the denial proved in the seq●el●) that these are things of indifferency to be used( as is required) in the service of God, and so both they which command them, and they which use them, do both alike sin in so doing.  
2. Though it be granted they are things of indifferency, yet if it be not in the power of the Church to command things of this nature, do we not in this case partake of our governors sin, if we obey their unlawful command? For do not we build them up in this erroneous opinion of the lawfulness of their commanding in such things, if ministers, especially of any number and nore, shall yield thereunto without contradiction? would not the Governors themselves leave off commanding and urging such things) if they did conceive they had no power from God to command herein? Is it not an offensive use of our liberty to endanger thereby the souls of our Governours?   

REASON II.  
FRom the Rule of Gods Worship and of the whole manner of administration or performance thereof: Gods Worship call not only( according to the School) but also( according to the Scriptures) whatsoever we do( in way of reverend acknowledgement of his divine Excellency) immediately offer up unto God, as prayers, sacrifices, &c. but we do offer from God in his Name unto his people, as preaching, Sacraments, &c. Mat. 15.9. The manner of administration of Gods worship( or as Divines are wont to call it) the circumstances of Gods worship, I call, whatsoever is set apart for the administration, or performance of Gods worship; as the dayes, the places, the instruments, as the fire for the sacrifice, the Ministers, and their garments( though appointed but for comeliness and glory in their ministration, Exod. 28.40, 41. Now the Rule, as well of the circumstances of Gods worship, as of the worship itself, I take to be, not the Commandement of man, but the Word of God, Deut, 12.32. where the Lord forbiddeth, not only all Traditions and Constitutions of men added to the Scriptures, as the Rule of our faith and manners, nor only all such worship, which( for the substance of it) is not commanded in the Scriptures, but also all such circumstance or manner of performance of worship unto God, as is added, beside the direction of the Word, for these words are a conclusion of the who●e Chapter, and gives direction, not only that they offer not up their children in sacrifice to God, as the Heathen did, ver. 31.( which kind of sacrifice he never commanded, but also that they offer not up the sacrifices commanded by him, neither in such places, not before such Images, nor in any such manner as the Gentiles used, ver. 2, 3, 4. no, nor yet in such place and sort as seemed good in their own eyes, ver. 8.13. but as well for the manner of performance of the worship, as for the worship itself, they should take heed to do whatsoever he commanded, without adding ought thereto or taking ought therefrom. Hence it was, that nothing was appointed by David or Solomon, touching church-music, or the orders of the Levites( both which were but circumstances of Gods worship) but according to the Commandment of the Lord by the hand of his Prophets, 2 Cor. 29.25. Hence David was taxed for attempting to build a Temple to God upon this ground, because God had not prevented him or any of the Judges, his predecessors with a Commandment to that purpose, 2 Sam. 7.7. Hence Aarons holiday to the Lord, and Jeroboams feast of the eighth month were both of them taxed as the forgeries of their own heart, because God had required no such thing at their hands, Exod. 32.5. 1 King. 12.33. and in a word, as it fareth with these, so doth it with all the rest of the circumstances of Gods worship: if they be added beyond or beside the word of God, God not requiring them, doth not accept them, for the word of God being the Rule of Holiness, to appoint or use any holy thing without the warrant of the word, is to transgress the word. Now all these circumstances of Gods worship are holy to the Lord, as being set apart from common or civil use to the service of the Tabernacle, I mean, to the administration of religious worship unto God; for, whatsoever is set apart from common use, God hath set his property upon it, that it is now holy unto himself, Lev. 27.28. whence it was, that not only the garments which God appointed for Aaron and his sons to minister in, are call Holy, Exod. 28.2. but also the Censers of Corah and his Company are challenged by God as holy unto him, because they offered Incense in them before the Lord, Numb. 16.38. Such seemeth to me the case of the across and Surplice, they being not permitted in common or civil use, but set apart for administration of Baptism and offering up prayer unto the Lord; and therefore they must either have a word of institution in the Scriptures for the hallowing of them, which they have not, or else the Scriptures are impleaded not to be the perfect Rule of Holiness, which yet indeed they are.  
Say not, we put no holiness in a across or Surplice, but use them only as indifferent things for decencies sake: for though in word and judgement we deny holiness to these things, yet in very dead we hallow them by setting them apart to the administration of Gods holy worship. Gods Commandement for the setting apart of any thing for himself, or for his service maketh not a thing holy, but truly and acceptably holy: mans setting any thing apart for God, or for his service maketh it also holy, though superstitiously. When Constantine in honour of the Church at Jerusalem, gave to Macarius their Bishop a costly Vestment wrought with Gold wherein to administer Baptism; the Vestment was reputed an holy garment: yea, and is so called by Theodoret. Ecclesiast. Histo. l. 1. c. 27. And when Cyril was accused to have sold the same to a Stage-player, it stirred up great indignation against him, as against some sacrilegious person; And is not our Surplice, though not so costly, yet as holy as that Vestment. If it be demanded then upon what warrant do Churches dedicate and set apart Temples and Dayes to God and his Worship.  
I answer, 1. That I know no warrant for the dedicating or setting apart either Temple or Day unto God, or to the duties of his Worship in these times of the New Testament, except those dayes which God calleth for as holy to himself, as the Lords Day, and a day of fasting when God calleth to solemn humiliation( Joel 1.14.) and an holy feast, when God by some extraordinary blessing calleth to solemn rejoicing, 2 Cor. 30.23.  
2. Because God giveth general warrant of assembling together to the duties of his worship in any place( 1 Tim. 2.8.) and at any time( 2 Tim. 4.2.) therefore, doubtless it is lawful to assemble in Temples as well as in other places, and upon such dayes as are appointed by the Church as well as upon others: yea, and because Temples both for their largeness and thightness from injury of weather are more expedient for the Congregation than other places, either without doors or of less capacity: therefore it is more seasonable for them to meet in Temples than elsewhere, provided always, 1. That the Temples be not esteemed Gods houses, but the Churches, as serving not him, but ourselves with them, and the dayes be not esteemed as holy dayes to the Lord, but as assembly-dayes for the Congregation.  
2. That in such Temples, and on such dayes before, and after the administration of Gods worship, we do not restrain civil Assemblies, or Courts to be kept, and secular businesses to be transacted in them, for so indeed we do not set them apart for God, or for his worship, but use them indifferently for our own occasions, whether religious or civil. To shut up this whole second Argument: If the across and Surplice which are but circumstances of Gods worship be therefore unwarrantable, because they want institution from the word, how much more evidently will kneeling at the Sacrament appear unwarrantable, which is not a circumstance of Gods worship, but in itself a part of Gods worship, being one kind of external adoration, Psal. 95.6. Such worship of God as himself hath not required, he accepteth not, kneeling in the Sacrament is such a worship as God never required, how then can I hope it should be accepted? To worship God by kneeling in prayer, I find warranted by Commandement and example in Scripture: but in receiving the Sacrament not at all.   

REASON III.  
OTher reasons there be, which I confess I am not able to satisfy: and yet because they are urged more largely by others, I will dispatch them the more cursorily, yet so as to clear them from the manifold exceptions taken against them. In the Preface to the book of Common Prayer concerning Ceremonies, why some be abrogated, some retained: It is avouched, that none are retained: but such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special significations, whereby he may be edified: which argueth that the intent of the Church is, to edify Ministers and People by the use of these retained Ceremonies, and that this edification may be obtained by the aptness of these Ceremonies, both to signify to us, or to teach and admonish us of some Christian duties, and also to stir up and quicken our dull minds to the performance of the same. Now to retain or use Ceremonies to any such ends, seemeth to me unlawful in sundry respects.  
1. Because to my understanding, we are forbidden in the second Commandement to make to ourselves, or to use any likeness of any thing whereby to draw nearer unto God. Now, if we retain and use these Ceremonies to edify us, to teach and admonish ourselves of some good duties, and to stir up, and quicken our dull minds to a mindful performance of the same, do we not make to ourselves certain likenesses: a likeness of purity, and a likeness of bold profession of Christ crucified, whereby to draw nearer unto God in clothing ourselves with purity, and arming ourselves with manfulness in professing of Christ, and fighting under his Banner: when the Apostle saith, Let all things be done to edification, 1 Cor. 14.26. I cannot conceive that he giveth us liberty out of our own hearts to device and to use signs and similitudes of graces and good duties, wherewithal to edify ourselves, but yet he chargeth so to dispense the Graces of Gods Spirit in a known Tongue, and so to order the public duties of Gods worship in the face of the Congregation, one man speaking after another, that all things may be done to edification.  
2. Since in Christ we are complete, Col. 2.10. and need not that any man should teach us any duty of Gods worship, or in any otherwise than himself hath provided. Is not this to derogate from Christs prophetical office to device and use a new manner of teaching and edifying the church by visible signs, and similitudes of graces and good duties, which Christ invented not.  
3. Whereas the whole work of edifying the church dependeth upon the spirit of God, doth not ordinarily delight to work in any means, but such as himself hath sanctifiyed to that end. Is not this a tempting of the spirit of God to device, and use such signs to edify the Church, as either must perish with the use of them, or else put the spirit to show forth extraordinarily the power of his grace in such means, as he is never wont to breath in? Is it not the like tempting of God to put him to show forth extraordinarily the glory of his power or grace, either in refusing to use such means as he hath appointed, or in adventuring to use such means as he hath not appointed.  
4. To device and use ceremonies to put us in mind of good duties, and to stir us up to the remembrance of them is to make to ourselves a worshiop of God after the precepts of men, for our saviour Christ seemeth to me to judge of a like practise of the pharisees, for they devised, and used their often washings, to put them in mind of inward cleansing and purifying the heart, and to stir up themselves to the remmembrance of such duties. And in regard of this it is our saviour saith, they worshipped him in vain, teaching and practising such precepts of men, Mark. 7.1, 2, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.   

REASON IV.  
NOw to leave the present ill end and use( though from a good heart) aimed at in these ceremonies, and to come to the reason taken from the abuse of them, when the Lord requireth such zeal of his people against superstition, as that they should pollute the Ornaments of their Images and abandon them with detestation out of his worship, Isa. 30.22. And when he commendeth Hezekiah for breaking in pieces the brazen Serpent unto which the Children of Israel burned Incense, 1 King. 18.4. doth he dot call us to pollute the Omaments of the Mass, that is, to translate them to a common use, as Coapes into Quishions, and Surplices into under-Garments, or Napkins, or the like, and to abandon them wholly from having any place about the worship of God? And since the cross hath had the incense of prayer and divine worship offered up unto it, partaking with the brazen serpent in the like sacrilege, why doth it not partake in the like abolishment? Yea, and kneeling in the Sacrament having formerly been an ornament, yea a religious worship to the breaden God. If we think it meet to reserve it now in honour to the true God, might not Origen as well have born green boughs, formerly born to the honour of idols, now to the honour of Jesus Christ.  
If it be said the former abuse of a thing cannot take away the lawful use of it. No idoll-Antichrist or devil can make that unclean to me which Christ by his blood hath made clean; It is true, there is no former abuse of any ordinance or creature of God, or of any profitable invention or workmanship of man that can make them unlawful for me to use, Hophni and Phinees notoriously abused the sacrifices of the Tabernacle, yet( they being ordinances of God) the faithful restored and continued their lawful use. The Corinthian Idolaters abused much flesh in sacrileges to idols, yet the faithful Corinthian did lawfully eat of the same meate, it being a good creature of God, asking no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10.25, 26. The Jews abused their large water-pots to superstitious purifications: yet( they being profitable workmanship of man and fit vessells to contain the marriage wine) our Saviour made use of them to the glorifying of God by a miracle, in turning the water in them into wine, and drawing out the same from them( as from clean vessells) to the serving of the guests Joh. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9. upon the same ground we doubtless retain a lawful use, not only of the Word, and Sacraments, ordinances of God, which yet were notoriously abused unto idolatry, and superstition under the Papacy, nor only of the sun, moon and stars and all the host of heaven( creatures of God) which were abused to idolatry and witchcraft by Pagans, but also of Temples and fonts, workmanships of men, they being profitable and expedient vessels for that use they are put to in our congregation. In the old Testament indeed the Israelites were forbidden to reserve the Canaanitish temples, Deut. 12.2, 3. But I conceive that law to be ceremonial, and respecting that people only in a double respect, 1 because the Canaanites were a people more grievously accursed by God to utter desolation than other nations were, doubt. 20 13. to 18.2. Because the reserving of any of their temples would have been a with drawing them from the temple at jerusalem, where God had appointed to put his name there, which reason God himself doth not obscurely intimate, Deut. 12.2, 3, 5. In which regard Josia also did commmendably defile and destroy the temples built both by Solomon to idols, and by Jeroboam to the calves, 2 Kin. 23.13, 14, 15. But now in the dayes of the new Testament, when the blessing of Abraham is come upon all nations alike, and no fear is thereby reserving temples abused to idolatry, of withdrawing the people from any set place of his service, he having now appointed none, I doubt not but that notwithstanding the former abuse of popish temples, they being still profitable for the peoples convenient assembling, we may retain them to a lawful use.  
But as for these ceremonies, they being neither ordinances nor creatures of God, nor any such workmanships of man as are of any profitable expediency in the place which they hold about the worship of God: are they not therefore to be polluted, as the coverings and ornaments of the images, which Isaiah speaketh of, and abolished, as the brazen serpent, whose profitable use was grown out of date. Thus Tertullian that allowed the letters, and arts invented and abused by the heathen, because a profitable use might be made of them, yet would in no sort allow the wearing of the souldiers garland upon the head, it having been abused. To wear flowers, yea and garlands of flowers in the hand he liketh well of, where both the eye may be refreshed with the beauty of them, and the nostrell with the smell: but to wear the same on the head, where neither the sweetness nor the beauty could yield any refreshing, this he so far disliketh in a thing abused to idolatry, as that he highly commandeth the souldiers, constant and Christian refusal thereof, though it were to the loss of his own life, and the hazard of many other Christians. If it be demanded who shall judge of the profitable expediency of any workmanship of man, formerly abused to idolatry, seing perhaps men in authority may judge it profitable, which private men may esteem unprofitable: I answer the word and spirit of God, yea, and the light of nature also will easily judge of such a thing. The spiritual man judgeth all things saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.15. and especially Ministers of the word, to whom is committed the discerning of the estate of the flock, and the dispensing of a fit portion of spiritual food to their several state; Are they unable to discern what places, vestments, and gestures were profitable, and seasonable for their ministration.  
If the ancient use of these ceremonies in the dayes of the Fathers of the primitive church be pleaded to mitigate the odiousness of their following abuse, and to maintain the restoring of them to their first good use: I must confess( to speak under correction of better judgments) though the memory of the worthies of those times be precious, and honourable, yet could I never discern the lawfulness of the use of these things, since their first invention; for to begin with the sign of the cross, and not to urge the first invention of it by Valentinus the heretic, and the power ascribed by him to it of purging from sin, as the fan of Christ, Jraen. l. 1. c. 1.) nor to implead the necessity and efficacy of the cross, which the Fathers ascribing to it, are charitably thought to speak of Christ crucified, but to take the fairest use of the cross, at the best hand, when the Christians of those times held forth the sign of the cross as a badge of their bold profession of Christ crucified, did they therein perform any acceptable service to God, or his truth? To believe in the heart on the Lord Jesus, and to confess him with the mouth, as they were called thereunto, even unto the death, and to adorn their confession, with an holy and righteous conversation. In these things stood their comfortable honouring of their Christian profession, but to express their honour of Christ crucified by signing themselves with the sign of the Crone, in the presence of infidels, to the provoking of them to the reproach and persecution of Christ, and Christian name; I see no warrant for such unfeasonable over plus devotion. Gedeon made an Ephod, and set it up in his city Ophrah as a trophy of his victory; but was it not to him a ruin, and to his house, yea, and to the people also in tempting them to go an whoring after it? Jud. 8.27. The Christians of the primitive Churches made the sign of their cross, and held it forth as a glorious trophy of the victory of Christ upon the cross: but was it not shortly a ruin to the Church of God in stealing away the hearts of thousands of Christians to go an whoring after it?  
apparel of Ministers different from other men in common use no man disliketh, so that therein decency, gravity, simplicity be observed, but the setting of hallowed garments( whether surplices or others) apart from common use to the administration of holy public duties of Gods worship, though it were acceptably prescribed by Pope Stephen the first, about the year 260. I dare not justify it as lawful for the two first reasons above mentioned.  
Kneeling in the Sacrament I red not either practised, or prescribed in the Church till the dayes of Honorius the third, when as Transubstantiation for the name, had been formerly hatched by Jnnocent the third, and( for the thing by lo the ninth) so that if we carry ourselves not as servants, but as children to the fathers( as they are called) of the primitive Church; If we embrace and imitate their sayings, and doings not with servile necessity, but with Christian liberty( as children parents in the Lord) as we cannot discern any just ground of their first inventing and practising of these things, neither shall we ever be able to restore them to their first good use, which indeed they never had. But say their first use had been good and behoveful to the Church of God was it not so likewise, yea, and much more with the brazen serpent? Had it not his first institution from the authority of God our heavenly Father, and his first use to the healing of the venomous stingings of the fiery serpent? Yea, and to the lifting up of the hearts of the faithful to the faithful beholding of Christ lifted up upon the cross, and yet since it being afterwards idolatrously abused, was abolished, why fareth it not alike with these ceremonies, whose first institution was not so authentical, nor their use so behoveful, nor their following abuse less abominable? if it be said Hezekiah did well in breaking the brazen serpent, to abolish the abuse thereof with the thing itself: but yet that he had not done amiss, if he had only removed the abuse, and reserved the thing; the truth is, it was the express commandment of God that things idolatrously abused( even in less gross manner than it was) should not be cleansed but polluted, nor the abuse removed but the thing, Isai. 30.22. and therefore to say( as some do further) that Hezekiah therefore removed the brazen serpent, because the abuse of it was desperate, and past hope of restoring to his innocent use; and therefore ours to be better born with, whose abuse is more recoverable. Is not this to say, he would have broken the express Commandement of God, which requireth the removal of things less abused, whethersoever the abuse be desperate or not? Yea, is not this to say things at random( as men do which would fain say somewhat, when they know not what to say) to say the abuse was desperate when the Scripture saith no such matter, how can any man tell the abuse was desperate when the Scripture is silent herein; or shall we think Hezekiah would not have removed it, if the abuse were dangerous, unless withall it had been desperat? It is no sufficient ground to conceive the abuse of the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah abolished, was desperate, because otherwise he would have as well destroyed Solomons idolatrous temples, and the images therein, whose abuse was then neglected; for( under correction, I do not think that Hezekiah spared to destroy those temples and images, though we afterwards red that Josia destroyed them in his time, 2 Kin. 23.13, 14. for is it not said that Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father David had done, that he took away the high places( that is) the idolatrous temples, and that he broke the images, 2 Kin. 18.3, 4. Now that Josiah came afterward to destroy them, it was not because Hezekiah had neglected them, but because Manasseh reigning between them both, had repaired and built again those idolatrous temples and images which Hezekiah his father had broken down, 2 Kin. 21.3. 2 Cro. 33.3, 19. To say Hezekiah removed the serpent, flagrant delicto, the idolatrous abuse of it being then in the heat: though this might be some excusall of our Governors forbearance of these ceremonies in these dayes,( wherein the abuse of them is allayed) yet is not this to confess an oversight in those worthy restorers of religion in the dayes of our Fathers, who bore with them, even then when their abuse was as general, and gross and busy as ever? And what though the like abuse of these things doth not continue in like measure in our reformed Churches. Is it nothing to us how notoriously these things are abused in popish Churches? when our neighbours houses are on a light fire round about us, is it nothing to us to let such light fuel( as we have no use for) ly still in our houses, so easily apt to take hold on the same fire, wherewith they are consumed? To say the brazen serpent was more grossly abused than any of our ceremonies have been, is not this rather to cast lotts what to speak, then to weigh what to speak? is offering of incense to the brazen serpent an abuse of a more proper, and essential sacrifice due to God than the offering of prayer for salvation to the sign of the cross? Is not prayer coupled with incense as, at least, an equal worship. Psal. 14.2. yea, is not prayer the substance of that worship, whereof incense is but the shadow? Is not prayer both inward and outward worship, and incense but outward only. Finally to say that the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah abolished was the same in number which was abused, whereas our ceremonies are not the same in number, but in kind only, doth not justify our preserving of them from abolishment: for first, as they be not the same in number, which the Papists abused: so neither are they the same in number which the Fathers used before the Papacy, if they be the same which the Fathers used, as is alleged to authorize them, why are they not the same also, which the Papists abused to abolish them? Again when God chargeth his people to abolish the names of strange Gods out of their places, Deut. 12.3. when he promiseth to take away their names, and remembrances out of the mouths of his people, Hos. 2.17. doth he not call for the abolishment of all idols which have been formerly abused? not onely the same in number, but even all of the same kind, or name, whose mention might renew any honourable memorial of the former? We do indeed call the names of some moneths in the year, and of all the dayes in the week after the names of the Planets, and other heathenesh Gods, which, though it was of old condemned by some ancient divines, when the memory of the heathenish Gods was fresh amongst the people, yet now that their memory is worn out of the peoples mindes, we do not stick at the use of their names, for the distinction of dayes and times no more than Luke did in describing the ship wherein Paul sailed by the name of the heathen Gods, Castor and Pollux, Acts 28.11. but what maketh this the retaining of the names of heathen Gods for distinction sake, to the retaining both of the names and the things themselves, which have been idolatrously abused, not for distinction sake, but for honours sake: besides when God forbiddeth the Israelites to do after the manner of the heathen, Lev. 18.3. he doth not only debar us from retaining the same things in number, which they abused, but even the same in kind, and proportion, neither doth he speak of things simply evil in their own nature, but of such also as of themselves might have been used indifferently. They are forbidden to cut round the corners of their head. Lev. 19.27. and to make any baldness between their eyes. Deut. 14.1. both which, though the gentle used sinfully, as a sign of immoderate mourning for the dead; yet the things of themselves, of their oun nature, were indifferent, and might have been used either for decency, or for signs of deep, though not immoderate mourning for the dead, which yet God allowed not to his people. As therefore it was not lawful for the Israelites to use such like Ceremonies for indifferent, which the Gentiles sinfully had abused; so neither may we use such like ceremonies which the Papists sinfully have abused for indifferent: and when the Lord sorbiddeth his people to worship him as the Gentiles worshipped their Gods, or to do so unto him as they did unto theirs, Deut. 12.30, 31. doth he not likewise forbid us to kneel to him in receiving the Sacrament, as the Papists ●n receiving the Sacrament, do kneel unto their breaden God. They therefore that( out of their learning) tell us that our ceremonies are not the same in form and substance) that the Popish ceremonies be, because the superstitious intent, and use whereunto they apply theirs is wanting in ours. They do not consider that the Lord forbiddeth his people, not only to use the same ceremonies, which the Gentiles used to the same end, which they intended, but also to use them in any religious service at all, yea, or in any civil office, like unto them, where the use leaveth no profit behind it.   

REASON V.  
I Am now to come to the last Reason( which yet is not of the least weight) taken from the offence, which is given by the using of these ceremonies; offence I call that, whereby the conscience of a weak brother is edified to sin,( as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 8.10.) whether it be by emboldning him to do evil, or by discouraging, and hindering of him from doing that which is good, offence may be given, either by doing some good duty behoveful to be done, or by doing some thing before others, either evil in itself, or appearing to be evil; or else by using our liberty in things lawful( or as they call them indifferent) but yet in expedient. The offence that is given by doing any good duty behoveful to be done is no sin unto him that giveth it; for thus our Saviour offended the pharisees by teaching an wholesome, necessary truth, Mat. 15.12. whose offence in this case he regarded not, ver. 14. The offence that is given by doing that which is evil before others, is always a double evil, both in regard of the sin in itself, and also of the mischief that it doth to others, whether it be that the evil be done by practising some few sins to the evil example of others.  
Or by speech, or gesture, persuading, counseling, commanding, countenancing sin, or discouraging, and hindering another in any good duty, 1 Sam. 13.28. 1 Kin. 22.28, 29, 30. Mat. 16.22, 23. or by forbearing to punish sin in our place, according to the due desert of it, 1 Sam. 3.13. or finally by defiling any ordinance of God, or any good duty to the provoking of others, to the abstaining, and abhorring, not, from the abuse only, but from the duty or ordinance itself, 2 Sam. 2.17, 24. The offence that is given by doing something that hath in it appearance of evil, is an evil also, 1 Thes. 3.22. which eleazar worthily avoided, 2 Machab. 6.21, 22, 23, 24, 25. The offence that is given by using our liberty in things lawful, but yet inexpedient( of which we red, 1 Cor. 10.23. the Apostle condemneth as evil, Rom. 14.20, 21. for instance, to eat of meat sacrificed to idols is in itself lawful( or as they call it indifferent) because every creature of God is good( 1 Tim. 4.4.) and to the pure all things are pure, Tit. 1.15. and we know that an idol is nothing in the world( and therefore hath no power to pollute that unto us, the profitable use whereof Christ hath sanctified by his blood to us) 1 Cor. 8.4. but yet to eat of such things, when others thereby would be edified to sin, when as they by thine example would be emboldened to eat of such meats, not as thou dost, as of meats pure, and not hurt by the idols, but according to their own weakness, as of meats sacrificed to the idol, and sanctified by it, this would be a grievous sin in thee against thy brother, for he having conscience of the idol, that is in conscience bearing reverence to the idol, and seeing thee eat of such meats as were sacrificed to the idol, to wit, to the service and honour of the idol, he verily thinketh thou honourest, and servest the idol, and so is emboldened himself likewise to eat of such things to the honour and service of the idol, 1 Cor. 8.7, to 12. In which regard the Apostle professeth he would never eat flesh while he lived, than thus to offend his brother, 1 Cor. 8.13. yea, and commandeth all Christians to abstain from use of their liberty in this case, 1 Cor 10.28. yea, further such tender regard he hath and would have us to have to the inward peace and comfort of our bretheren, that he teacheth it to be a part of our charitable walking to abstain from such things( otherwise lawful) as whereby our brother would be grieved for that we do, and happily think the worse of us for so doing, Rom. 14.15. Now then to apply these things to our present purpose, say that these ceremonies enjoined, in themselves might be lawfully used( which yet in the service of God we have already shewed they may not) nevertheless since hereby we should give manifold offence to the consciences of our bretheren, were there no other reason but this, yet even in this very respect, were we bound to abstain from the use of them, for first, is it a light offence which we offer to the Magistrates, whose souls ought to be most precious in our sight) when we by yielding to the practise of such ceremonies do build up them in this erroneous opinion( not only that such ceremonies are indifferent, but also that it is lawful for them to enjoin and urge upon the Church of God the use of human ordinances, in the service of God, which perish with the use of them? again, shall we not offend the separatists, by admitting such ceremonies into the Church( as through their weakness) thrust them out of the Church: shall we not offend others of our bretheren, who though otherwise they hold communion with our Churches, yet will by no means communicate with us at such times, where they see these ceremonies used by us? were it not much safer,( for their sakes and the separatists) by admitting our brethren into the Church to thrust out the ceremonies, than by admitting the ceremonies to thrust out our brethren? What shall we say many ignorant people, whereof too many are found in every congregation? shall we not offend them by using the Surplice, when they think the prayers not well hollowed without it? the cross, when they think the child not to have( as they call it) his full christendom without it. Kneeling in the Sacrament, when some of them are the more emboldened thereby to worship their maker in the elements, and other think the Sacrament unworthily and unreverently received without it. They who think such ignorant people are not to be found in all England, are themselves as yet scarce well acquainted with their own congregations. The Church-Papists amongst us( especially such of them as of ignorance, and weakness are devoted that way) they also are to be reckoned of us, as weak brethren, as the weak idolatrous Gentiles were of Paul, 1 Cor. 8.7, 10, 11. and shall we not offend them by holding forth the Surplice which he reverenceth as an hallowed vestment, the cross which he religiously adoreth, kneeling in Sacrament, whereby he( taking the opportunity) worshippeth devoutly his breaden God: finally when we see so many both silenced Ministers, and other Christians strongly possessed with opinion of the unlawfullnes of these ceremonies, shall we not at all offend them? or at least grieve them by holding up these things as the matter of our liberty, which have held them under as the matter of their misery. The reply here made is chiefly this, that all this burden of giving offence, doth lye more heavy upon them who refuse the ceremonies, than upon them who yield unto the use of them, for if we refuse the ceremonies, do we not offend the Christian Magistrates by provoking them to think of us, as disobedient, and factious, and foolishly precise, streyning at the gnat of a ceremony, and swallowing the camel of disloyalty, and turbulence? do we not offend the whole body of the people provoking them to the like disorderly contempt of lawful autholity?  
For answer hereunto, first this doth fully satisfy me, that the burden of giving offence can neverly upon them who do in their conscience judge these ceremonies not to be indifferent, but to be unlawful in the service of God: for if we do not see our liberty in the lawful use of them, how should we be condemned for not using that liberty, which to our understanding God hath not allowed us? they who esteem these things as indifferent, and see their liberty in conscience to use them, or use them not, they cannot excuse themselves from sin, if they use them unseasonably, to the offence of others, because they without scruple of conscience might as freely have omitted them, as now use them uncharitably: but such as have faithfully endeavoured to search out the bounds of their liberty in this behalf, and yet cannot see their liberty of using these things, without sin they are exempted from danger of offending of any, by forbearing that liberty which they cannot use without sin, for we may not commit any sin to avoid offence, so that whatsoever offence falleth out upon occasion of these ceremonies, either from the use or the refusal of them, cannot be imputed unto them, who would gladly do to the utmost what lawfully they might to prevent offence, but unto them only, who knowing their liberty in these things, as well to forbear them as to use them, do yet not withstanding use them, to the occasioning of all those many offences which are taken of them.  
Secondly, as for such who think these ceremonies otherwise indifferent, but yet( as things now stand) inexpedient, and unlawful only in regard of offence, I think they take the safer course to prevent offence rather by refusing then by usinge of them, for when it is pretended that by using these things we onely offend a few private persons, whereas by refusing them we offend public magistrates, it cannot indeed be denied, but that the offence given to a public person is more dangerous( if other things be equal) than that which is given to a private( because a public person stumbling at any offence draweth many others to fall after him, and by offending him we sin against loyalty and charity both, whereas by offending a private person we sin against charity only) yet I cannot see in this case how the magistrate may truly be said to be offended, when judging these things to be indifferent, may safely remove them and the offence with them, when it pleaseth him. If there be such weakness in a magistrate, as to take offence at any mans forbearance of these things, there is in him also no less strength( even strength of authority) whereby by taking these things out of the way, or rather letting them fall of themselves, he may prevent the occasion of his own offence, and the offence of others. The case standeth not so with private persons: if they be offended with the use of these things, though their persons be lighter then the Magistrates, yet their offence is heavier, as being remediless. Besides though the offence of public persons were every way heaviest, yet for any man to use his liberty in these things against his conscience were to offend against God, who being the most public, and sovereign governor above all, the offence against him were heaviest of all. There is no fear that Ministers by forbearance of these things shal offend the people by provoking them to like disorderly contempt of lawful authority, for it is no contempt( no nor show of contempt) when a Minister, either in conscience of his duty to God, or in charity toward his weak brethren shall forbear the use of some things commanded, as indifferent by the Magistrate, and in the mean time shall quietly and reverently submit himself, his body, his goods, his life, yea, and which is more( the very life of his life, his ministry to the discretion and pleasure of the Magistrate. Is there any colour of disloyalty or turbulence in this or any semblance of disorderly contempt of lawful authority? Nay rather is there not herein an evident building up of the people, to a reasonable Christian and conscionable obedience of the Magistrate, when we rather quietly submit ourselves to the loss of our dearest comforts, than blindfold yield to obey his ecclesiastical laws, till we see them grounded on reasons from the word, which may assure our consciences that they are commanded in the Lord. For a Minister to obey the ecclesiastical laws of a Magistrate, without looking for warrant of them from the word; is not to build up the people to a Christian and reasonable obedience of the Magistrates, but to a blind and carnal obedience of him.  
Do we not offend the separatist in laying such grounds of non-conformity, whereupon they build their separation? The separatists too have built their separation upon the grounds of non-conformity, is as likely as was the raising of Goodwin sands upon Tenterton steeple, though not comforming to ceremonies argueth them unlawful, or at least inexpedient, and consequently the Church to be blemished, that is encombered with them, yet doth it therfore argue the Church to be no Church, or the worship of God in it no worship? Sooner may blood be wrunge and prest out of milk, than such a schism out of the Sincere milk of such wholesome doctrine, what hath stirred up their separation themselves tell us plainly in their writings, they feeling the smart of their own pain, can best tell us where their pain lieth.  
Do we not offend the ignorant people, especially our weak followers in nuzeling them up in a negative superstition( as it is called) wear not, cross not, kneel not.  
Do we not offend the Papists by casting out the ancient ceremonies of the Church, the more to alienate them from our new-fanglednesse? and as for the silenced Ministers, and such other Christians addicted to them, what need we regard the offence of them, since they of all others are not weak bretheren, but the strongest of all either indeed, or at least in their own conceit.  
And what ground is there( I pray you) of nuzeling up the ignorant people in a negative superstition, by not Crossing, not wearing, not kneeling, as is appointed by man, not by God if superstition be supra statutum, the doing of this or that beyond, what is commanded us by Gods statutes, whether of the twain( think ye) carrieth the Superstition, to use and urge Crossing, wearing, kneeling, which are all of them beyond what God hath commanded, or not to use crossing, wearing, kneeling, because God hath not commanded them? Is it not far more truly called a denial or negation of superstition then a negative superstition to deny those things which are Supra statutum, beyond the statutes of God. The Papists, if through love of antiquity they have been offended, and alienated from our religion, by our new-fangledness in casting out the ancient ceremonies of the Church, methinketh they might the sooner be won to our religion by seeing our whole service restored to the ancient primitve simplicity of the first institution, was not the service of God in the Apostles times freely and fully administered? the Minister being addressed without the Surplice, baptism without the cross, the Lords supper without kneeling? kneeling, cross, Surplice are novelities to the ancient first institution, yea and practise also of those dayes, yea and many dayes after.  
Finally the silenced Ministers, and such other Christians as cleave unto them in opinion, and affection, though none of them were weak bretheren but all strong, yet neither is the offence of them to be excused, Barnabas was a strong man in Christ, as being full of the holy Ghost, and faith, Act, 1.24. yet Peter was not therefore excusable for giving offence unto him, when by his example he drew him to like dissimulation, Gal. 2.13. Christ himself was so strong, as that no weakness was found in him, and yet Peter was sharply reproved for giving offence even to him, Mat. 16.23. So that were all the silenced Ministers, and their adherents never so strong, yea, and never so strongly possessed of the unlawfullnes of these ceremonies, yet by our conformity in yielding to them, may they also be brought to like dissimulation, and to favour themselves( as Peter counseled our Saviour) in preventing their suffering for these things. But furthermore if we account all these Ministers and such others to be strong men, why do we not respect, and follow their judgement, and practise in the forbearance of these things? If we account them weak, why do we not forbear these things to prevent the offending of them, as of weak brethren. Besides the truth is, though some of them be grown so strong in wisdom, and brotherly love, that they are able( by the grace of Christ to pass by an offence) and so Christ be preached in any sort to rejoice therein, and neither be drawn themselves to assemble with their own consciences by sight of others conformitancy nor be induced to think the worse of others who( otherwise walking constionably) do use their liberty in these things: yet verily sundry others there be, even amongst them, which cannot so easily moderate their judgements, and affection, and speeches towards such as they see follow the course of the times, in yielding to these things, yea, and all of them the more strong, and heavenly minded they be, the less can they choose but grieve to see any fearing God, defiling themselves with these empty ruciments, which themselves are persuaded to be unlawful: wherefore since by the use of these ceremonies we shall give offence to so many of our bretheren, so many sundry vayes, doth not brotherly love constrain us rather to forbear these things, though with hazard of our own outward peace, and the peace of our Ministry, than to use them to the prejudice of the inward peace of our own consciences, and the consciences of others. If it be said, It is written woe be unto every Minister, if he preach not the gospel, 1 Cor. 9.16. but it is no where written, woe be unto him if he wear a Surplice, or use the cross, or stoop to kneeling in receiving the Sacrament. The answer is ready, it is also written, woe be to the world because of offences, it cannot be but that offences shall come, but woe be to him by whom the offence cometh, Mat. 18.7. If it be said, that the offence that cometh by these things is not given but taken, or if it be given, it is only by accident, by reason of the weakness of such as take it, though it were true( which yet is not) considering what hath been said touching the sinfullness of these things in themselves in the service of God, and their aptness to hurt others, yet that will not free us from the burden of that woe pronounced against such by whom offence cometh, for the Scripture maketh no difference between giving offence and doing any thing by which offence cometh, though it be by accident. The offence which Paul so much insisteth in, of eating things sacrificed to idols, is not in itself an offence given( for in itself it is lawful and good) but taken only, or if given, given only by accident by reason of the weakness of some brother, who hitherto hath conscience of the idolI, and seeing a man of knowledge, eats of things sacrificed ●o the idol is emboldened to continue still in his idolatry, doing sacrifice, and service to the idol, and therefore which way soever an offence cometh, by giving, or taking, by itself or by accident, wo be to him by whom it cometh: onely he which is exempted from this woe in case of offence, is such an one by whom offence cometh either by doing some necessary duty of his calling( as Christ offended the pharisees by preaching the seasonably wholesome doctrine of what things defile a man, and yet was guiltless, Mat. 15.10, 11, 12, 14.) or else by using Christian liberty to the offence only of false bretheren, Gal. 2.4, 5. If it be said again, the offence which now is given by such as use these ceremonies is therfore guiltless) because it being now called into question whether these things of indifferency may be appointed, and used in the service of God, or no, and they know it to be a truth of God concerning Christian liberty, that it is lawful so to do, they shall seem to forsake the maintenance of this truth, if they shall now forbear the practise of it( in which case praestat nasci scandalum, quam deseri verum) The answer is plain, though it were a truth, that it were lawful to appoint matters of indifferency in Gods service, and that these things were but matters of indifferency, yet is it not safe unseasonably to maintain this truth by practising the liberty thereof to the offence of the weak; Was there not a truth of God concerning Christian liberty called in question in Pauls time: whether it were lawful to eat of things sacrificed to Idols, or no: and did he for maintenance of this truth use his liberty in eating thereof? no verily, he professeth he will rather never eat flesh while the world standeth, 2 Cor. 8.13. Was there not a like truth called in question, when one believed he might eat all things, another which was weak did eat herbs: one esteemed every day alike, another esteemed one day above another, Rom. 14.2, 5. And, did Paul advice them that had faith to see their liberty in these things, publicly to profess and maintain this faith, by using their liberty to the offence of the weak: nay rather, saith he, It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak; hast thou faith, have it with thyself before God, blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth, Rom. 14.21, 22. Indeed it is true, if fundamental points of Doctrine concerning things necessary to salvation be called into question: as, whether Christ be {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} or the like, there it is requisite to contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints, whosoever be offended, and in this case it is true ( praestat nasci scandalum quam deseri verum) better offence be given than the least jot of Gods necessary truth forsaken. But in such truths, in which ignorance, or error, is no prejudice to salvation on either side, as in this case, of the lawful or unlawful use of these Ceremonies in Gods service, praestat sileri verum, quam nasci scandalum, better the truth be left untaught, at least unpractised for a time, than offence given to weak brethren.  
Two Remedies yet remain behind, whereby it is thought all danger of offence may be safely and sufficiently prevented, the one by teaching of the Minister, the other by the authority of the Magistrate; if there were, say they, any such danger of offence, it may easily be helped by the wise instruction of a faithful Minister, declaring the lawful use of these things: which, since it hath not been wanting these many yeares, both in word and writing, no man can now pretend ignorance or weakness, so, that now if any be offended, it is not so much out of tenderness of conscience, as out of wilfulness of humour, which is not to be so much cherished, as for it to forbear our lawfull-liberty in things indifferent, whereunto I will not answer( as many do upon too good ground) that many Congregations have been long without a teaching-Minister,( and what instruction have they had) and others without a faithful Minister( and how regardless have they been by any wise instruction to prevent offence?) But this I demand, what instructions are they which a Minister can give in this case to prevent offence, though he set himself as wisely and faithfully( as he may) to perform it? Shall he teach that it is lawful for Ecclesiastical Magistrates to ordain strict penal laws touching matters of indifferency, that it is lawful to command such circumstances, or manner of administration of Gods worship, as God himself in his word hath not commanded; That it is lawful to appoint and use edifying Ceremonies to instruct and stir up the dull heart of man to some duties of devotion: that it is lawful to retain Popish unprofitable Ceremonies wherewith they have abominably dishonoured God, with them to honour God and his service; that it is lawful for a Christian Magistrate, not to regard offence in giving his Commandments touching things of this kind for his Commandment taketh away scandal in things indifferent. But, are not all these so many points of false Doctrine( as hath been formerly shewed, and shall we teach falshoods to prevent offence: but say it were possible to find out such true and wholesome doctrine to teach the people as might be fit to prevent offence in these things; offence may still continue notwithstanding this: for, though a Minister should give never such just grounds of satisfaction, yet it oft cometh to pass that a weak conscience resteth not satisfied; it is God only that can satisfy the doubting conscience, when thou happily seest the clear evidence of thine own reasons, it may be, he, what through weakness of judgement, what through want of illumination, what through tenderness of conscience seeth it not, and what shall a Minister do in this case? shall he now boldly use his liberty in these things which he hath taught to be free, shall he wash his hands, and say, I am innocent from the blood of these men that are still offended after so much instruction, if they now perish, their blood be upon their own heads, let them perish: Surele Paul was of a far other mind, when he professed, he would rather never eat flesh while the world standeth, than offend his brother, 1 Cor. 8.13. It is not to be thought but in all that time Paul would take occasion to instruct, and seek to satisfy a weak brother; but yet, suppose he should continue in his weakness unsatisfied, Paul also would continue in his wise and charitable forbearance of the use of his liberty, while the world standeth: do not say therefore, how long shall I continue teaching my weak brother, till seven times, I say not till seven times, but till seventy times seven, even so long as he continueth a weak brother: if the question be how long such an one may be counted a weak brother, the answer is, so long, as being weak in knowledge he discerneth not the light of that satisfaction shewed unto him, or being weak in affection is still apt to be grieved at the use of thy liberty, and the weakness of such an one is the more to be tendered, if it be joined with a desire to learn the truth, and care to do according to measure of knowledge received, humbly using the means to build up himself: indeed if such an one, though he were not yet satisfied in the lawful use of this, or that, yet would assure thee, that thy practise contrary to his judgement should not offend nor grieve him, but he would wish thee to use thy liberty, and both would rest in not judging one another, then wert thou free to use thy liberty in matters truly of indifferency. For such a brother, though he may be still weak in knowledge, yet is grown strong in Christian affection: but if the question further be, whether a man after so long instruction without receiving satisfaction, doth not now degenerate from a weak brother to a false brother, whose offence is not to be regarded; for, Paul that did circumcise Timothy for the weak brother, Acts 16.3. would not circumcise Titus for all the false brethren, Gal. 2.3, 4, 5. I answer, A false brother may easily be discerned from a weak brother by two marks: 1. A false brother creepeth into the fellowship of the faithful to spy out the liberty which they have in Christ, to bring them into the bondage of observance of such things, which themselves for their own practise make no reckoning of, Gal. 2.4. compared with Chap. 6.12, 13. 2. A false brother is wedded to his own opinion and practise, not so much out of weakness of judgement, as out of strength of will without seeking after knowledge, or desire to receive instruction offered; as it is with many Papists in observing their Fishdayes, and such other traditions. These will either not confer with you at all, or if they do, will resolve to hold fast their own conclusion, and when you show them their error, will either seek to divert you to a new question, or with anger fret at the light you offer them, or bring you back again the same reasons to the same issue, with wearisome repetition: It is a sign a man seeketh not truth but victory in a svit of Law, when seeing the issue of his Plea fall out clearly against him, non-suiteth himself to bring it about again: so is it here a sign, not of a weak brother desirous of truth, but of a false brother carried with sinister purposes: when he, beginning to see the error of his cause, starteth aside, either to a new cause, or to the fetching of the same doubts about again; it is not so with weak bretheren, they would be loathe to bind others, where they do not see themselves bound first, and when you shall reveal any light to them for their satisfaction, they gladly embrace it, if they be not able to discern it, they stand not contending with you, but rather desire your prayers that God would persuade their hearts of these things whereof they are not able to convince themselves.  
I come now to that other help to prevent offence, which some think sufficient thereunto: to wit, the authority of the Magistrate; for, they who teach that the authority of the Magistrate taketh away scandal in matters of indifferency, they know not( as they say) what offence any man can give by the use of these things, since the authority of the Magistrate hath peremptorily required the performance of them, for, things otherwise indifferent do in some sort alter their natures, when they are commanded by lawful Authority, and may not then be omitted contrary to Law. So that now, the performance of these things being in some sort a necessary duty, we may not omit them for avoiding of offence. But this whole device containeth in it a double error: 1. That the authority of the Magistrate maketh that, which before was a matter of indifferency, to become a duty of necessity, which if it were true, I do not see but by the same authority, a Magistrate might make that which before was a duty of necessity to become a matter of indifferency; it is an act of the same power to bind unto sin, and to release from sin. Again, if it were so, that the authority of the Magistrate did make a matter of indifferency to become a duty of necessity, then surely the breach of any of his Commandments( though in a matter otherwise of indifferency) would become a sin unto us to be eschewed upon pain of damnation. And, what were this else than to put into the Magistrates hand power to kill the soul, as well as the body; contrary to that speech of our Saviour, Matth. 20.28. Yea, as the Magistrate is Gods Minister to kill the bodies of such as disobey God in heinous crimes: so God should be his Minister to kill the souls of such as disobey the Magistrate in things indifferent. How much more safe, and sound Doctrine were it, to reserve unto God the Prerogative that he may first command a thing, and then see it to be good, and to leave unto the Magistrate this direction: That he is first to see a thing to be good, and then command is. Secondly, The other error which that device containeth in it, is, that the authority of the Magistrate taketh away scandal in matters of indifferency; for, is not this to make the Commandment of God of none effect by the authority of man? If God command thou shalt not give offence, by using thy liberty unseasonably in matters of indifferency: and we say, by the gift of obedience, which thou offerest to the Magistrate, thou shalt be free; Is not this to obey man, to the disobedience of God? The Magistrate himself is a Christian man, and therefore himself bound by the Law of Christian love, not to give offence to any of his weak bretheren, much less to command others to do that which is offensive. Further, offence given is a soul-murther, 1 Cor. 8. A Magistrate can no more lawfully make an offence given to a weak brother no offence, than the murder of an innocent no murder.  
Finally, Since the very Law of God touching matter of Ceremony ceaseth to bind, when the observance thereof would prove prejudicial to the welfare of mans body, Matth. 12.3, 4. Shall not much more the law of man touching matter of indifferency cease also to bind, when the observance thereof would procure scandal, and scandal perishing to the soul of man. It is not therefore in matters of indifferency the law of man that taketh away scandal, but scandal rather, that taketh away the law of man.  
These are the things, Reverend Sir, which entering into my mind upon occasion of such meditations in reading of the Scriptures, have detained me from seeing any lawful liberty to yield unto this required conformity; God is my record, whom I desire to serve in the liberty of the Spirit of his Son; if I were able to satisfy myself in resolving these Reasons, I would neither be troublesone to yourself, nor other my friends, in seeking your help to perform it for me: neither durst I hazard the liberty of my poor ministry, but upon that evidence of the truth, whereupon I would think myself bound( if I were called thereto) to hazard also my life. If God have revealed any further light to you touching these things, then as yet I can see( as I know by reason of the ripeness of the yeares, the soundness of your judgement, the great variety of the reading, it well may be) I pray you for the ancient undeserved love to me, for your love to Gods Church, for your love to Christian liberty, impart it plainly, and liberally to me. I trust the Lord who fashioneth all our hearts, and all our opinions( will of his mercy) keep me from shutting mine eyes against any light of his truth, which himself by you or others shal reveal to me. The Lord guide and keep our hearts in the ways of his truth, and peace in Christ Jesus,  
Amen. Amen.  
Tibi soli Domine Jesu.    

Satans bulwark for conformity.  
1 PRide in opposing and preferring private judgement, against tot, tantos, tales.  
Ans. I would be loathe to subcribe unto Calvin's institution and yet prefer not my judgements to his.  
2. Pride would rather provoke to yield to authority to cross, and crush the malignant oppositions, and expectations of all adversaries, which were as easily done( if there were no other let, as to draw a cross line.  
3. Singularity.  
Ans. It is incident to a good cause Jer. 15.10.  

2. The number of the others not so great which out of settled judgement think them expedient. 

1. The Convocation-house consists but of a number of divines, each diocese( whereof each containeth many shires, sand but 2 Clerkes; not so many as the 300. silenced.  
2. Of such as yield, some do it not simply approving the things, but in case of deprivation.    
3. Let the King be pleased to ordain the abrogating, of these things, and subsription to the superstition and offensivenesse of these things, and see if 300 will refuse it even to deprivation.   
4. Authoritly.  
Ans. It is always to be obeied either in.  

1 Doing.  
2 Suffering, yet in all antiquity no president for punishing so severely the neglect of matters of indifferency. Victo●s rash excommunication exploded by Jrenaeus.   
2. Godly authority occupied about matters of greater importance may slip in circumstancial matters, 2 Sam. 6.1, 2, 3. with 1 Cron. 15.12, 13.  
No outward thing defileth a man.  
True, there is a lawful use of all things, but not in Gods worship, and other cases, as of love-feasts, but not in the Lord Supper: Womens apparel lawful but not on a mans back. Is not here also something indifferent, yet in case becoming abomination, Deut. 22.5. as making men abominable.  
I will not be brought under the power of any thing, which he is said to be, that either cannot be without a thing, or will not or cannot be at all with it.  
The latter branch not true, for then our abandoning sin, were to be brought under the power of it.  
3. Indifferency of the things.  
Ans. 1. That is denied of such as suffer in regard of 

1. Churches intent to stir up.  
2. Addition to the manner of worship beyond the word.  
3. Former and present abuse.  
4, scandal.    
2. Though indifferency were granted, yet they ought not to be commanded, as being beyond the Apostles commission, Mat. 28.20. Col. 2.20, 21, 22.  
4. Uniformity.  
Ans. The wo d provideth not for it but for unity, which is best procured either 

1. By removing such a partition wall, Eph. 2.14, 15.  
2. By forbidding, judging and despising of either party, Rom. 14.3.    
The place of Col. 2.20, 21, 22. though spoken against ceremonies, wherein will-worship was put, yet stre●cheth to all human inven●ions.  
Pauls intent in the Epistle to the Galathians is to reason against the necessity of the ceremonial law, but his grounds stretch also to refute popish justification by the moral law.  
In doubtful casesas, this about Hierarchy and ceremonies, who in the right known by these signs:  
1. What Spirit resteth upon the sufferers, if that of glory, then they suffer for righteousness sake, 1 Pet. 4.14.  
2. What do they seek, if not their own bellies but Gods glory with neglect of their bellies, then it is not they that make the schism.  
Rom. 16.17, 18.   

BEloved brother in or blesed Saviour. I desire your opinion concerning the nature of a religious ceremony, what you conceive to be the main difference between a cereony religious and civil, whether it stand not in this, one is used in acts of divine worship, the other in civil. The reason of my doubt, and question is because of the altar set up by the 12 tribes, Josh. 22. which was for a religious end, but yet I know not whether to be counted religious, as rather only civil, as being a witness of communion between them and their brethren, which is but a civil thing, though the end be holy and religious: If religious ceremonies have place only in or about acts of Gods worship, then this was no religious ceremony, as never being used in any such act. On the other side I desire also to know what you think of the Jews phylacteries, and fringes, which were both commanded of God, and to a religious end, whether you would call them religious ceremonies or no. I having speech with a Godly man lately about these, he would have them called religious, which if it be admitted, I doukt we shall rush upon a rock; for if they were religious, I see not but we must aclowledge as much of the Altar, and if so, then may the Church constitute such ceremonies: for I should be loathe to condemn the judgement of the whole Church( especially in those purer times) in allowing of it.  
Ans. That which maketh a ceremony religious is not all use of it in time of divine worship, no nor always the use of it to a religious end. A child or servant sitteth barehead in time of divine worship,& yet his gesture of reverence is civil. The bell ringeth to a Sermon, which end is religious, yet the action is civil; but I conceive it. 1. The setting apart of a ceremony to God or to his worship maketh it holy and religious, Lev. 27.28.  
2. The using of it directly, and immediately to a spiritual or religious end maketh it also spiritual and religious. The ringling of a bell directly and immediately calleth the people together, that they being met, join in spiritual duties ariseth by virtue of an higher call.  
Now a ceremony is employed to a religious end, when it is used, 

1. To teach some spiritual doctrine, as when images are used for lay mens books.  
2. To stir up devotion, or quicken and strengthen spiritual affection, and graces, as the sacrament and abusive popish confirmation.  
3. To prevent and drive away impediments of Spiritual devotion, as holy-water and the cross amongst the Papists, to cleanse from venial sins, and to drive away devils.    
The Altar on this side Jordan did directly and immediately express onely a similitude of the Altar before the ark, and so by consequent implyed that the fashion of the Altar before the ark was not unknown to the Reubenites and Gadites, and by a further consequent implyed that they had been wont to see the altar before the ark and to worship at it? But this use of the altar was only civil, as the ringing of a bell to a Sermon. The phylacteries were religious for being commanded of God to a religious end, directly and immediately( to wit) to put them in mind of Gods commandments, that they might not look besides them, nor seek after their own hearts, and eyes, Num. 15.38, 39. They doubtless had a spiritual efficacy to help forward these ends.   
FINIS.